When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On April 24, 2019, at around 23:53, the Defendant: (a) expressed that “A police officer assigned to the Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station C police box, who was called out after having reported 112 that “A person, who was drunk, was diving on the road” was “Abrepted by the Defendant,” and (b) expressed the Defendant as “Abrepted to governance,” to the police officer, i.e., e., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers in relation to 112 reported handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the cutting of black stuffs and images;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order and the degree of interference with the execution of official duties are not much serious, the defendant repents and reflects his mistake, and the defendant has only the criminal records of a single fine.